international municipal lawyers … term limits for municipal council members imla – san francisco...

0

Term Limits for Municipal Council Members IMLA – San Francisco Leo F. Longo, Aird & Berlis LLP September 30, 2013

INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

“Term Limits for Municipal Council Members”

Leo F. Longo©

Aird & Berlis LLP Toronto, Ontario

September 30, 2013

San Francisco, California

morju05

Zone de texte

CEIC-R-3539

1


Term Limits for Municipal Council Members

Leo F. Longo©

Aird & Berlis LLP Toronto, Ontario

No Canadian municipality has a limit on the number of consecutive terms an individual may serve on its council. Furthermore, no Canadian municipality currently has the jurisdiction to establish such a limit. I believe the time has come to raise and debate the advantages and drawbacks of municipal council term limits. The history respecting the lengthening of municipal council terms in Ontario will be considered, followed by an overview of existing municipal term limits in the United States. Recent [failed] attempts in Canada to raise the issue of municipal council term limits will be presented. This paper will conclude with a modest recommendation for a term limit proposal with a suggestion as to the manner in which this issue might be broadly considered. This paper will focus primarily on Ontario legislation. I – Background on the Lengthening of Municipal Council Terms Municipal council terms in Ontario were initially only of a one year duration. Annual municipal elections were the norm. In 1906, legislation was passed which allowed municipalities to establish by by-law a two-year term for its council. The “catch” was that any such by-law establishing this longer term required the assent of the electors.1 In 1944, the provision was further revised to allow municipalities with biennial elections the option of establishing a “staggered” system of election whereby in each year one half of the council members’ terms would expire.2 I have not been able to discover which Ontario municipality was the first to establish a two year term for its council. Nor did my research uncover the first or total number of municipalities that opted for the “staggered” system of election. Toronto’s municipal election in 1956 was that city’s first for such a two-year term.3

1 The Municipal Amendment Act, 1906, S.O. 1906, c. 34, s. 4.

2 The Municipal Amendment Act, 1944, S.O. 1944, c. 39, s. 13.

3 On October 24, 1955, Toronto Council enacted By-Law No. 19533 “To provide for Voting on a By-law to

provide for biennial elections of Members of Council”; see Council Minute No. 648 and Appendix “B” at p. 361. The results of the vote were reported to Council at its January 6, 1956 meeting; see Council Minute No. 6 and the Clerk’s Report in Appendix “C” at pp. 11-26. The vote was 47,958 in favour and 33,742 against.

2


Up until 1972 there was a variety of council term lengths throughout Ontario’s then 800 plus municipalities. Some still maintained one year terms; more had opted to establish two-year terms, and three “upper-tier” municipalities actually had some three-year terms!4 By 1967, 56% of municipalities had adopted the two-year council term.5 A provincial committee established to report on municipal elections concluded:

“The Committee regards as merited and desirable the adoption of a two-year term of office for all municipalities and their local boards.”6

With the enactment of The Municipal Elections Act, 19727, which removed election matters from the Municipal Act and other provincial legislation to its own discrete act, a universal two-year term was established for all municipal councils throughout Ontario. Just five years later, a Joint AMO-AMCTO8 Committee on municipal elections in its final report determined that there were no technical implications to introducing longer municipal council terms than the then current two years on a province-wide basis.9 In 1982, municipal council terms were extended to three years.10 Nine municipal elections were held for such three-year terms. AMO published a brief background paper11 and conducted a survey in 2005 on the length of municipal council terms throughout Canada. The current four-year municipal council term was initially established in 2006.12 The date for Ontario’s third set of municipal elections under this lengthened term is October 27, 2014. To my knowledge, there are no municipal council terms anywhere in Canada or the United States which are of a duration greater than four years. No legislation in Canada makes provision for the “recall” of municipal council members.13

4 The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act, 1966, S.O. 1966, c. 96, s. 2 introduced a

three-year term for Metro council. After two three-year terms, Metro Council reverted to two-year terms; see The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act, 1972 (No. 3), S.O. 1972, c. 168, s. 1. The Regional Municipality of Niagara Act, 1968-69, S.O. 1968-69, c. 106, s. 3(2) established an initial three-year council term, followed by subsequent two-year terms [s. 4(3)]. See also The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act, 1968, S.O. 1968, c. 115, s. 5(5). 5 Ontario Municipal Elections Committee Report, p. 17 [Toronto, 1970].

6 Ibid.

7 The Municipal Elections Act, 1972, S.O. 1972, c. 95, s. 9.

8 AMO – Association of Municipalities in Ontario; AMCTO – Association of Municipal Clerks and

Treasurers in Ontario. 9 Final Municipal Elections Report, The Committee, AMO-AMCTO, p. 23 [Toronto, 1977].

10 Municipal Elections Amendment Act, 1982, S.O. 1982, c. 2, s. 1.

11 AMO Background Paper and Survey on Municipal Council Term and Related Matters, AMO [Toronto,

2005]; see: http://amo.on.ca/WCM/AMO/AMO_Content/Reports/2005/AMOBackgroundPaperonMunicipalCouncilTerm.aspx. 12

Budget Measures Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 9, Sch. H, s. 2. 13

Removing a Municipal Politician from Office: What Can and Should be Done, PowerPoint, Leo F. Longo, June 4, 2009 – “IMLA in Canada” Conference.

http://amo.on.ca/WCM/AMO/AMO_Content/Reports/2005/AMOBackgroundPaperonMunicipalCouncilTerm.aspx

http://amo.on.ca/WCM/AMO/AMO_Content/Reports/2005/AMOBackgroundPaperonMunicipalCouncilTerm.aspx

3


II - American Examples of Municipal Council Term Limits A very useful and informative research paper, dated February 2, 2011, was prepared and published by The Philadelphia Research Initiative entitled “City Councils in Philadelphia and Other Major Cities: Who Holds Office, How Long They Serve, and How Much it All Costs”.14 An extract from that study is reproduced and attached as an Appendix to this paper. Examples of existing municipal council term limits are presented therein. Maximum consecutive terms of service range from 6 to 12 years. Further academic research and assessment will need to be undertaken to measure the impact of term limits as same pertain to local municipal governments. Academic studies15 are now being published that assess the impacts and consequences which the imposition of state legislature term limits have had on a variety of subject matters, including the election of women [no real impact yet]16 and minorities [no real impact yet]17. Nevertheless, one study notes:

“Term limits, by changing election rules, have altered the selection of the people who make laws, and thus they have had a major influence on public policy. They have dramatically changed the composition of legislative bodies and impacted the authority of the individuals who lead them They have altered the way legislatures function, and even, in some cases, changed the balance of power between the legislative chambers and the executive branch.”18

Yet other observations by the same authors include the following:

“…the increased frequency of siblings and spouses succeeding each other in California provides additional evidence that term limits have not lead to a ‘new breed’ of citizen legislator.”19

As noted above, as more experience is gained in those states with term limits, further academic research and assessment will more fully measure and reveal the impact of term limits.

14

Principal Author: Thomas Ginsberg, See http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/City_Council_Philadelphia_Major_cities.pdf. 15

See Term Limits and Their Consequences: The Aftermath of Legislative Reform, Caress, S.M. & Kunioka, T.T., (State University of New York Press, Albany, 2012). This work focusses exclusively on the 21 state legislatures that imposed term limits [6 later repealing same] in the past two decades; no municipal term limits are mentioned or studied. An extensive bibliography is provided. 16

Ibid., Chapter 4 and p. 170. 17

Ibid., Chapter 5 and p. 170. 18

Ibid., p. 2. 19

Ibid., p. 108.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/City_Council_Philadelphia_Major_cities.pdf

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/City_Council_Philadelphia_Major_cities.pdf

4


III – Some Recent Municipal Council Term Limit Initiatives (A) – City of Winnipeg At its meeting of March 22, 2006, the City of Winnipeg considered the following notice of motion by Councillors Peter De Smedt and Russ Wyatt: “WHEREAS Civic Government functions best when fully responsive to the electorate;

AND WHEREAS the public interest is well-served through a mandated rotation of its elected officers; AND WHEREAS the public interest is enhanced when the electorate has more opportunity to unfettered access for public service to the office of mayor and councillor; AND WHEREAS term limits have been implemented in other democratic jurisdictions with positive impacts; AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to limit the terms of Members of Council to 2 full four year terms, with additional terms possible after a four year stand-down between each set of 2 full four year terms; AND WHEREAS civic government functions most responsively when matters of significant public impact are tested through the will of the electorate; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Council of the City of Winnipeg submit a referendum question to the electorate during the 2006 General Municipal Election to seek public support for term limits for Councillors and the Mayor, as described; 2. The Council of the City of Winnipeg request that The Winnipeg Charter Act be amended accordingly with the limitation on terms commencing November 7, 2006, if accepted by a majority of the electorate; 3. The Proper Officers of the City be authorized to do all things necessary to implement the intent of the foregoing.”20

That motion was defeated on a 14-2 vote. An attempt to amend the motion to refer to a maximum of three consecutive terms of office was defeated by a similar vote.21

20

See Council Minute No. 375, March 22, 2006 Council Minutes: http://winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=6135&SectionId=&InitUrl. 21

Ibid.

http://winnipeg.ca/CLKDMIS/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=6135&SectionId=&InitUrl

5


(B) – Norm Sterling MPP Norm Sterling moved the following motion under the “Private Members’ Public Business” portion of the Ontario Legislature’s proceedings of March 5, 2009:

“that, in the opinion of this House, a Select Committee on Municipal Governance for municipalities with populations greater than 500,000 people be appointed to consider and report to the House its observations and recommendations with respect to alternative governance models for larger municipalities. In developing its recommendations the committee will:

(1) Work with municipal politicians, academics, experts and other interested parties to determine better governance models for larger municipalities;

(2) Recognize the low turnout of voters for municipal elections;

(3) Recognize the very high rate of incumbents re-elected;

(4) Recognize the difficulty of a mayor to get consensus from a large number of independent councillors;

(5) Recognize the difficulty electors face in determining the platforms of the candidates with regard to broad municipal and fiscal issues;

(6) Consider the pros and cons of the current municipal governance model;

(7) Consider the terms, timing and conditions of a referendum for the approval by municipal electors of any municipality for any change of governance in their municipality;

(8) Consider the introduction of political parties and party financing at the municipal level;

(9) Consider term limitations for elected municipal officials;

(10) Consider models from other large municipalities in jurisdictions outside of Ontario.” [emphasis added]22

At that time, only Toronto, Ottawa, Mississauga and Hamilton had populations in excess of the 500,000 threshold mentioned in the motion.

Most of the discussion in the Legislature at the time this motion was debated concerned matters other than the term limit aspect of this motion.

Without government support, the motion was lost on a 13 ayes – 27 nays vote.23

22

Hansard, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Votes and Proceedings, No. 119, March 5, 2009, Private Member’s Notice of Motion No. 78 [under hyperlink “municipalities”]: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2009-03-05&Parl=39&Sess=1&locale=en#P696_204287.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2009-03-05&Parl=39&Sess=1&locale=en#P696_204287

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2009-03-05&Parl=39&Sess=1&locale=en#P696_204287

6


(C) - Toronto

Earlier this year, first-term Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon addressed a brief letter to City Council in which she stated, in part:

“One way to continually refresh our civic debate is to impose term limits on elected officials ensuring new faces and new ideas are always being brought to the table. Toronto needs to begin discussing the value that term limits could bring to our democratic system.” “As elected officials we encourage Torontonians to get involved in municipal politics, term limits could give the youth of Toronto a better chance at becoming public representatives themselves. It is time that Toronto explores whether or not term limits will make Toronto City Council more reflective of the demographics, aspirations and culture of Toronto.”24

A formal motion by Councillor McMahon [seconded by Jaye Robinson] was tabled at the February 20-21, 2013 council meeting25 and referred to Executive Committee. The motion read as follows: “City Council direct the City Manager to report to City Council no later October 8, 2013,

on the potential for term limits for City Councillors and Mayors which will include, but is not limited to:

a. opinions and recommendations from the City Solicitor regarding the term limit under existing legislation specifically City of Toronto Act (2006) and Municipal Elections Act (1996); b. a survey and comparison of term limits for elected representatives in North American municipalities; c. the potential effects on political engagement and participation that could arise from the imposition of term limits in Toronto; and d. a robust public consultation process to assess Torontonians attitude toward term limits.”26

At the March 20, 2013 Executive Committee meeting, this matter was “deferred indefinitely” upon the motion of Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong27 who has continuously served in office since 1994. The Toronto Sun reported that he boasted: “‘We shot it into outer space’, Minnan-Wong insisted after the vote.”28

23

Ibid. 24

February 5, 2013 letter; see: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-56269.pdf. 25

See Motion MM30.8: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.MM30.8. 26

Ibid. 27

See Item EX29.11: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.EX29.11.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-56269.pdf

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-56269.pdf

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.MM30.8

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.EX29.11

7


There has been no further consideration of term limits at City Hall. IV - Is it Time to Consider Municipal Council Term Limits? Why should municipal council term limits be examined? This paper will briefly examine some of the arguments usually advanced in responding to the question as to the need for such an initiative. (A) - Term Limits Already Exist Mayors and council members in office tend to suggest that we already have term limits in effect in Ontario…they are called elections! This trite response completely fails to recognize that the status quo has produced many of the negative consequences raised in this paper by those seeking the favourable consideration of municipal council term limits. This “do nothing” approach should not be allowed to succeed in forestalling or preventing a fulsome debate about the merits and drawbacks of term limits. (B) - New Ideas In his regular “Governance Zone” column published in Municipal World, George Cuff wrote a submission entitled “New Ideas” wherein he stated:

“It has been my observation that few council members who have served more than two terms are likely to be the initiators of any substantive change.”29

Those supporting terms limits believe that the eventual turnover of councillors that will ensue will automatically result in new voices and new ideas being heard at the council table. While not an unreasonable assumption to make, it will remain to be seen if indeed such an outcome is in fact achieved. (C) - Incumbent Advantage As Norm Sterling noted in the Ontario Legislature commenting on the 2006 municipal election results in the province’s four largest cities:

“The results are that people are disengaged from the process. They only vote on the basis of the name and not on the basis of policy for the good of their city as a whole. This is demonstrated so clearly by the statistics in the 2006 municipal elections across the four cities that I mentioned.

In the city of Toronto there were 275 candidates for 44 council seats. When it came down to council seats, 36 of 37 incumbents were returned. The only incumbent who was defeated was by another former councillor and MPP, Tony Perruzza. In Mississauga, there were 76 candidates for 11 seats on council, including 23 in one seat. All of the llincumbents were re-elected in Mississauga. In Ottawa, all of the incumbents were re-

28

Toronto Sun, March 20, 2013; see: http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/20/call-for-term-limits-wont-go-away-at-city-hall. 29

Municipal World, June, 2007, pp. 37-38.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/20/call-for-term-limits-wont-go-away-at-city-hall

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/20/call-for-term-limits-wont-go-away-at-city-hall

8


elected in all 23 council seats. In Hamilton, all incumbents were elected save one, and the incumbent in Hamilton lost to a former MPP of our Legislature, Brad Clark, who I believe was also involved in municipal politics before he became an MPP.

In all, 73 of 75 incumbents in our four largest cities were re-elected and the other two lost to former councillors, former MPPs who could almost be described as incumbents themselves.”30

In an editorial, the Toronto Star noted:

“Few jobs in Canadian politics are more secure than being elected to municipal office. City hall incumbents are notoriously hard to defeat — not necessarily because they’re good, but because the system is tilted in their favour. And they like it that way.”31

This unfair “tilted” playing field is one of the prime reasons advanced for the introduction of term limits. Many councillors appear to be returned to office not for their vision, productivity or effectiveness…but simply voter recognition of their name and that they are the current office holder. Current councillors have numerous means and advantages to reach out and become better known to their constituents. This includes use of publicly-funded councillor office expenses to produce and distribute newsletters and hire administrative staff.

New candidates must overcome this substantial hurdle; and it is one that becomes ever greater with each passing election that an incumbent remains in office.

(D) - Poor & Declining Voter Turnout The interest in and turnout for municipal council elections are the poorest amongst all levels of elected government in Canada and are declining. This disinterest is attributable, in part, to the incumbency reality noted above which leads to feelings of inevitability of result which diminishes the apparent value and importance of each individual’s vote. Making voting for municipal councils more convenient [telephone and internet-based] is receiving serious consideration and some implementation throughout Canada.32 Extending voting rights to non-Canadian urban residents has also been advanced.33 The imposition of term limits should be assessed as an additional possible means of addressing poor voter turnout in local municipal elections.

30

Hansard, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Votes and Proceedings, No. 119, March 5, 2009. 31

Toronto Star, February 19, 2013; see: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/19/toronto_should_study_term_limits_for_city_council_editorial.html. 32

See ISI Inteli√ote Systems Inc.’s website: http://www.intelivote.com; and Internet Voting: The Canadian Municipal Experience, Nicole Goodman, Jon H. Pammett and Joan DeBardeleben, Canadian Parliamentary Review (Autumn, 2010): http://www.revparl.ca/33/3/33n3_10e_Goodman.pdf. 33

See The Municipal Franchise and Social Inclusion in Toronto: Policy and Practice, Myer Siemiatycki (October, 2008): http://cdhalton.ca/pdf/icc/ICC_Municipal_Franchise_and_Social_Inclusion_in_Toronto.pdf.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/19/toronto_should_study_term_limits_for_city_council_editorial.html

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/19/toronto_should_study_term_limits_for_city_council_editorial.html

http://www.intelivote.com/

http://www.revparl.ca/33/3/33n3_10e_Goodman.pdf

http://cdhalton.ca/pdf/icc/ICC_Municipal_Franchise_and_Social_Inclusion_in_Toronto.pdf

9


V - My Proposal Each municipality should be given the choice and power to establish by by-law term limits for its council members. The municipal council term limit that I suggest is appropriate and be considered would impose a three consecutive term, twelve year limit for the council position in question. My proposal would not establish a maximum lifetime limit of a number of years that one is permitted to hold office as a council member. That is, after sitting out an election, a former councillor would again be entitled to be elected as a councillor for up to three more consecutive terms. Furthermore, should a councillor, after twelve years [or less], seek the office of and be elected as Mayor, he or she could serve in that position for up to twelve years. This equates to a potential twenty-four years of consecutive public service at the municipal level. As Toronto Star urban affairs columnist Royson James succinctly noted:

“Three terms – 12 years service – should be enough. Move on. Run for Mayor. Do something else for at least a term. Then, return if the voters clamor for a reprise.”34

The matter of Regional Councillors will need to be addressed. Ought there to be distinct three term, twelve year maximum for that discrete office? Or should there simply be a combined twelve year maximum that one may consecutively serve as either a local or regional councillor? My suggestion would be the latter. Alternatively, while leaving it at the option of a municipality to “opt in” by by-law to a municipal council term limit, the Province could stipulate that the term limit regime be as specified by the Province. This would ensure that there was a uniform municipal council term limit regime throughout the Province rather than a variety of local schemes with varying provisions and exceptions. A final alternative would be for the Province, after full consultation with all stakeholders, to impose council term limits on all of its 444 municipalities. Whether it be through a uniform term limit regime or a variety of schemes [e.g. one best suited for municipalities over 500,000; another for those under 20,000], the Province could mandate same. VI - What Would Need to Change…other than people’s resistance to the idea of term limits? All municipalities in Ontario, other than Toronto, obtain their general jurisdiction and powers pursuant to the Municipal Act, 200135. That act would need to specify that a council may, by by-law, establish a maximum term limit of consecutive service by its head and members.

34

Toronto Star, February 8, 2013; see: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/02/08/its_time_for_term_limits_at_city_hall.html. 35

Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/02/08/its_time_for_term_limits_at_city_hall.html

10


While a municipal council currently has the power to determine the size of its council [subject to same being composed of at least five members36] and the titles used for its head of council and council members37, all council members must be elected in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act, 199638 and there is no authority to change the length of term of office of any council member.39 The authority to establish and impose term limits ought likely to be placed in a discrete section of the Municipal Act, 2001 and City of Toronto Act, 2006. In addition, subsection 29(1) of the Municipal Elections Act, 199640 should be revised to clarify that a person is ineligible to be a candidate for council if that person has reached any consecutive maximum term limit of service in effect in a municipality. It would remain and need to be determined whether any other consequential legislative amendments might be warranted to fully implement municipal council term limits. The time has come to raise and debate the advantages and drawbacks of municipal council term limits. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities [FCM] and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario [AMO] are significant stakeholders and should consider examining this issue and contributing to its discussion. It is hoped that this paper will assist in sparking that conversation.

36

Ibid., s. 217(1) 1.; City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sch. A, s. 135(3) 1. [“COTA”]. 37

Ibid., s. 220. 38

Ibid., s. 217(1) 2.; COTA, s. 135(3) 2. 39

Ibid., s. 217(5); COTA, s. 135(5). 40

S.O. 1996, c. 32, Sch.

11


KEY FINDINGS

The 17 current rnembers of Philadelphia City Council have seNed longer, on average, than their

peers in 14 ether big cities, and they comprise Philadelphia$ longest-tenured council in at least the past six decades.

At 15.5 years, Philadelphia's average council tenure at the end of 2010 was approached only by Balt imore and Chicago at roughly 13 years each. ln Philadelphia, f irst-tenm members held only 18 percent of the seats; they held more than a third in most of the other cities studied. Council President Anna Verna has been in office 35 years, longer than any other Philadelphia City Council member since at least 1920, and two other members have seNed for more th an 30 years.

Longevity, which can be both a positive and a negative force in government. is one of a number of measurable characteristics of city councils thal The Pew Charitable Trusts' Philadelphia Research Init iative examined in the nation's 10 most populous cilies plus five other large cities chosen because of their similarity and/or proximity to Philad elphia. They are Balt imore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Antonio, San Diego, San Jose and Washington, in addition to Philadelphia.

This e><amination was conducted on the heels of a recession that has led many cilies to eut their budgets. City councils were heavily involved in those decisions, and councils' own spending levels have come und er increased scrutiny. And the cities are about to engage in the once-a-decade council redistricting process that will defi ne the parameters of local political representation for the next 10 years.

The study compares such measurable items as council budgets, staffing, salaries, certain electoral conditions, tenure and representativeness. ln examining comparative costs, the report a Iso looks at Denver, Nashville and San Francisco, three ether large municipalit ies that, like Philadelphia, have the added responsib ilities that come with being consolidated city/counties. No attempt is made to assess the political effectiveness of any council.

12


CITY COUNCILS IN PHILADELPHIA AND OTHER MAJOR CITIES:

Who Holds Office, How Long They SeNe, and How Mvch lt Ali Costs

Among the other key findings are these:

• The Los Angeles City Council spends the most per seat, about $ 1.7 million, and Pittsburgh the !east, about $226,000. The 15 councils cast local tax-payers a median of about $607,000 per seat this past year, the biggest part of which was salaries and benefits for staff and members. The Philadelphia City Council's 2011 budget for staff salaries, employee beneflts and operations was roughly $1.1 million per seat, sixth highest among the cities. On a per-resident basis, Washington, which functions as a city, county and state, spent the most on its cou neil, $32.41, whi le Phoenix spent the !east, $2.10. Philadelphia has one council employee (including members) fer every 7,900 city residents compared with 1 for 13,500 across ali the cities studied.

• Detroits co uncil consumes 1.01 percent of city general-fund spending, the largest among the cities studied. New York's 0.10 percent is the lowest. Across a ll 15 cities, the median is 0.46 percent of total general-lund spending. That share changed little through the recession (fiscal 2008 to 2011) for many of the cities including Philadelphia, which is at 0.50 percent. After inflation, se ven of the cou ne ils reduced the ir own budgets du ring the period, 1 ed by Phoenix's 33 percent -eut, while seven recorded increases.

• Los Angeles has the highest average salaries for council members, $178,789, and San Antonio has the lowest, a maximum of only $1,400 per member. The average council salary in Philadelphia is $121 ,107, fourth-highest out of the 15 councils studied.

• The size of .çity councils ranges from 51 seats in New York and 50 in Chicago, to 17 in Philadelphia, to just eight seats in San Diego. Relative to local populations, Los Angeles has the smallest council, with just one seat for every 255,500 residents. Pittsbl.llrgh has the biggest, one seat per 34,600 residents. Philadelphia's 91,000 residents per seat is at the middle of the pack.

• As for historically under· represented groups, most of the cities have about the same percentage of blacks in council as in their general populations; in Philadelphia, blacks make up 43 percent of the population a nd 41 percent o f the council. Philadelphia has the second· highest proportion of women in council, at 41 percent. Dallas has the highest, 47 percent, while Los Angeles is lowest at 13 percent . Hispanics and Asians have smaller shares of cou neil seats compared to populations in most of the cities.

• Democrats dominate councils in the six cities that have party·based voting. The other nine cities have non4 partisan elections.

• Philadelphia City Council has the most weeks during which no hearings or sessions appear on its official calendar-12 weeks during a typical summer-although many members continue to work du ring that period. ln conttast, Houston, officia li y a part-lime panel, schedules some type of toui'ldl busiMss every week of the year, although often only partial da ys.

• Only three councils-Philadelphia, Detroit and los Angeles-provide a city·owned car to each member. Most ether councils g ive an auto allowance or reimbursement instead.

• Most of the councils, including Philadelphia, post videos of council meetings online as weil as searchable databases o f legislation. A majority do not post members' persona! financia l d isclosure statements or lobbying records. Philadelphia plans to start doing the latter in 2011.

13



Who Holds Office, How Long They Serve, and How Much lt Al/ Costs

Overall compared to other city councils, Philadelphia's 17 members on average have held their positions longer and are less likely to be forst-termers. They are comparatively weil-pa id and wellstaffed , and lhey have more unscheduled ti me in the su mm er. They are more l ikely to be womon. More of them use a city-owned car. And they are among the few cou neil members who must quit the ir terms early to run for another elective office.

Ali of the cilies are different in fundamental ways, as are their govemments. Sever al are city/counties, and Washington is a city, county and state. Four of the cities-Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio and San Jose-have "council-manager" systems, in which council members generally have fewer duties than in the "mayor-council" systems used in the other 11 ci ties. ln seme cities, council service is full-t ime; in others, it is not. Thesc factors account forsome of the statistical variations among the counci ls.

TENURE

How long council members choose to stay in office~and how long the voters let them stay-are major p arts of any city's political culture and civic l ife.

Among the seven city councils with no lerm limits, Philadelphia's council had the longest average tenure at the end of 2010, 15.5 years; Pittsburgh's had the shortest at 3.5 years; and the eight-city average was 1 O. 9 years. Among the eight cities with term limits, Phoenix had the long est average at 8.6 years, Houston and San Diego the shortest at 2.7 years, and the overall average was 5.1 years. Among ali the cities, term-lirnited or not, the typical incumbent city co un cil member had 7. 9 years o f service. See Figure 1.

AVERAGE YEARS IN OFFICE At the end of2070, the average tenure w.ls 7.9 yé<'lfS for m~unbcrs of alf 15 cocmcils and 10.9 yews for members of the sé'Vén coundls without ltWm timits (bhre bats). Average tenure was. 5. 1 yel:lrs in the eight councils wt'th term limits (gtèJ}' OOrs}; tctm Jlmil$ were six yeéH$ in Housrott, 8-12 }'Cil!"$ in th(f o t}lers. Tenure is cafculated as o( Oec. 31, 2010 from the d:JtG o( oadt m9mbCf~ firsc tJicction or kllcrim Jppointment.Tenure indvdes any earlier terms for ~second-tH'nc" mem~rs who rctumcd to offlce (tfter t~gap in rime. Cak;uJ,tion$ incJudo the mayors of Dallas, Phoenix. San Antonio aM SM JO$C, who 3re mcmhers of their city coUIIcils.

~ ~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

~ IS

• Coooclls without term tîmils

C Cwncl1s with term llmits

~illu:Jel- C~o 6ellimQn! l'hoenôO< t<ISl.OA WW!ing~ 1.M N11w O.lllu S.:tl'l Det10it p;"_,. Sen ~ton S•11 phb 1on Atlgtl•$ Yotlo J~A b11~ Al\tonio Dieg:)

SOURCE.: Member liog~"aphles., election cal6"ldil!rs <~nd çOtmciiOfficial$ in è.'td1 city.

14



Who Holds Office, Howlong They SelVe, and How Much ft Ali Costs

At the close of 2010, three of Philadelphia's 17 council members had been in office for more th an

30 years, representing 18 percent of the body. The only city studied which had more su ch members is Chicago; there, four of the 50 members were 30-year veterans, representing 8 percent of the councif. ln the other 13 d ties, there was only one other council member (from Baltimore) with a.t

!east three decades in office.

Philadelphia had the second-largest imbalance between veterans and newconners. As Figure 2 shows, its share of first-termers was less than half the median of 37 percent.' O~ly Los Angeles had a lower percentage of first-termers, 2 out of 15 for 13 percent. At the other extreme was San Diego, which has term limits; six of its eight members, 75 percent, were in their first four-year terms. To

reach the median, Philadelphia would need sevan f irst-term members, four more than it has now.

For any city, longevity in office can be positive, negative or beth. Experienced city council members may be better able to advocate for their constituants and neighborhood interests. Or they may become roadblocks to change. New members, on the other hand, can bring fresh ideas, issues and constituencies into the governing process, although the newcomers may be nandicapped by l<>ck qf knowledge of the workings of govemment.

A number of factors affect the desirability of ;;myone's retaining a seat long term. Among them are pay, benefits and the ability of council members to work with the mayor to get things clone.

One factor for which Philadelphia stands out is its city charter's ban on any member running for another elective office wh ile serving any part o f his or her ternn. This forces them to step clown as soon as they announce a candidacy for another position. Members say this has had the effect of deterring their colleagues from launching such candidacies. Two ether cities in the study-

1i@1h!i ~-------------------------------------------

VETERANS VS. FIRST-TERMERS

Actoss an 15 couna1s, mora thun u thffd of mcmbefs were $et'Ving their ftrSr terms in office <H the end of 2010. First•tctmets indude those appo;.n·tOO to vacaocies but do not incWe "s~nd-time"' members who returnéd to offko aftor a gap in servic;c. catcutatk>ns lnctvde the mayor'$ of Dallas, Phoenix. San Antonio and Sctn Jose, who ar<t mcmbcrs of thcir city cou,lçifs..

• $h;)r(l or meml.w:n in fÎf:!lt t.eJm

SMre ol m~mtxll'$ in s;9ÇQnd \~rm or high.e1

100"

SO"- -- ~ --

1.0$ f hil&d•l- l'ftoenix w_.11;"9. BQ..oa Chic~o 8ahlm«o- fiowYolfl Ho~1oto Sail S.. Ootroit Oelltll f>iltt· Sa~ Mgelu phb ton An1cl\lo Jose- burgh Dit~o

SOURCE: Covndl Web$ilel, o.ty etecdon boards and calendvs. and t'IE'W$ clip$

15



Who Holds Office, How Lor>g They Serve, and How Much ft Ali Costs

Dallas and Phoenix-also impose so-called "resign·to-run" rules. But Phoenix exempts ofliceholders in the fast year of the ir terrns, and beth cil ies have term limits th at cap how long a cou neil member may serve2 Philadelphia council members have often criticized the rule. When the issue

was pJJt on the ballot in 2007, the voters refused to change i t.3

ln the ether cities without term l imits, a factor contributing to shorter stays in office appears t o be the councils' relative lack of power vis-à-vis the mayor and ether officiais. ln Pittsburgh and Boston, for instance, councillongevity is relative/y low, 3.5 years and 7.7 years respectively, d es pite the lack of term limits. Observers in those cities say council seats don't hold much long-term appeal for lo ·

çal politicians. ln Pittsburgh's case, the city operates under state f iscal oversight that curtails the autonomy of its nine-member cou neil and mayor' ln Boston, the 13-member council has been widely perceived as weak compared to flve-term Mayor Thomas Menine.'

Similarfactors, though, can have the opposite effect. ln Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley has demi· nated the 50-member city council for much o f his 24 years in office. Even so, there has been lititle cou neil turnover; the average tenure is 13.3 years.~ New th at Daley has decided not to seek a sev· enth t.erm, and the balance of power between the council and mayor might change, t here has be.en a rush of candidates forthe council. Seme local researchers and commentators believe the council

is in store ror its biggest tumover in years.>

Philadelphia has a lot of conditions in place that tend to keep members in office. tts council seats are se.en as attractive and influential, especially the d istrict council seats; allthree of the city's 30· year v-eterans are d istrict members.s The at-large seats, which require candidates to run citywide.

hold special appeal for people with strong name recognition; three of the seven curnent at-large members are sons and namesakes of former mayors.9 Over the years, council office budgets have held stable or grown in relation to ether departments. Members get relative/y high salaries and can have outside jobs i f they want. ln short, there are good reasons to stay. And most members do, seme un til dea th: in the past four decades, six members have died in office.10

Council PresidentVerna won herfirst council election in 1975 in South Philadelphia's Second District, a seat left vacant after her father died in office. According to the official Journal of City Council, no e ther cOLmcil member si nee 1920 has served as long as Verna-35 years as of the end o f 201 0' ' ln annou ncing tl1at she would not seek a tenth four-year term, V erna called her council service "my life's work.""

Four long-serving council members- includ ing Verna and 31-year veteran Joan Krajewski-are not seekil'lg re-election, meaning there will be at !east four new members in 2012.

16



Who Holds Office, How Long They Serve, and How Much lt A li Costs

TERM LIMITS

The voters, of course, have the power to terminale the service o f any council member at election t ime. Beyond that, one way to guarantee turnover and new members is through term limits. O f the 1 S cities studied, eight have term l imits for their c~y councils. Houston's limits are the toughest, allowing members no more than three two-year terms, or just six years in ali. Ali o ther cities allow 8-12 consecutive years. The other cities in this study with term l imits are Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose. See Figure 3.

Philadelphia has never had term limits. ln early 2010, Councilman W. Wilson Goode, Jr. f loated a pro· posai to limit rnembers to three four-year terms. His stated goal was to increase opportunities for nPwrOmPr"' "1 nnQ tA.f'H lf'A, in ~r\rl f'lf Îf~Aif. je;. nnt Îmj')f'Utt=tnt, 11 ~tlîrl (l()()rlP., ;:m 11-yP.~f mP.mhP.r him;elf.13

Gooce's proposai never got to a committee vote. At !east one early supporter, f irst-term Councilwoman Maria Ouiiiones-Sânchez, changed her mind after concluding that recen tly-adopted lerm limits in New York have tended to reduce the number o f H ispanic cou neil members there." ln fa ct, voters in sorne cities with term limits have eased them in recent years. Los Angeles changed its limit on council's four-year terms from two to three in 2006, a decad e after imposing them'' New York

votee to go from two to three terms in 2008, although it has sin ce go ne back to two terms.16 San Antonio in 2008 increased the limit on its two-year terms from two to four." "The mood was th at it was too restrictive, and cou neil members needed more t i me in o ffice," sa id Christopher Callanen, Assistant to the San Antonio City Council.'a

IIM!J.ji

LIMITS ON COUNCIL SERVICE

Eighr of the 15 <.:i:ies s(uc/ied ïmpose limïrs on serYice. ln seven oJ the cJties, the fimits appJ.y to cor~secutwe yeats, mearMg rttem· bers m.~sr leave when they reach the limit but may fUI'I again •'n th~ lutute. Ono city, SM Ant011io, impose$ a life(ime J"im;r, m~aning mernbets may névét tetutn afl« téMhÎI'Ig tho timit. rn New York, rie cigllt·year limit applies only lo member:s eJectcd in No\lember 2010 ;;md thGfoaftct. For mcm~l'$ oJcacd boforc thCII, &he limir is 12 ycars. Atl of the cities listed th at have no term limits ar;, in tho No'TJ1cast and Midwest.

Ho<...tston

8Years

Dalla• New York

San Antonto

San Diego San JoSé

12 Yeats

Los Angeles

Phoenix

Baltimore Sost on Chicago Detroit

Philadelphia Pitt>burgh

Washington

17


14799060.2

Leo F. Longo Panner

Em<lll: [email protected] PhQonel 41G.6GS.7770 f3)1: ! 416.863. 1515

Adm1U~d to the ontario Bar: 1979

l~ lon!)O iS a ~lor panner and member of the fltm's r<tunldplll Md L.IIOd use Pli!Mirtg Gr<tUp.

teo's pr<1ttlc~e b devott!d to t'Ill artas or land tJSe p.lartnirg, de.yefopment law ood mu'"clpl!l law, rev.resenUng botll I)Jivate «MM ~!>lie sector clients..

Sp~dal oe.slgnauon.s

Recelved tfle Oot&rio ~ A'$S()(iatiQn'$ Award Of fxceUelœ ln Municipal law (2010)

certlfled Spedallst 1n Munl~llaw: l oti'll Gcvcrt•ment Md IJin(llJse Planning and oeveiopment bv the law Sodety of Upper Ca.Rtl<l;)

Appe,r:; ln oll ~iU<>ns ()f TTI~ /.expert American LawyerGrJ/de to rhc Lwding SOO Uwycl'$ in Cw~ ê!S a l~adîng lawyer ln the .vea of Property Oevclop•OC!R:

Appears in ali ed!ti&ns of T1te C'JHUt(/J.4n Legal Lexperr Ot'eClDiy, a gul<ie to the leadlno law flrms end practi&ners ln can«~a. 3$ 8 teadi•l9 Jawyer Il\ U'\e al'f!a of Pr®ertv Oeveklpment

Appears ln ali ediUC>ns of The 8est Lawyers ln CiJntJdiJ ir Ille fièllfS d Muni(.'lpal l aw and Real Estate Law; 2014 Lawyer of the Ye<1r (14t.mld9-'II L.aw- Two•'llOI

M;h~vcd th~ BV M&rti"dale~llubbell Peer Revlew Ratino

Recelved the Onuarlo Bul1ôV'I9 Official$ A$$0Cit~tion'.$ Y{u~an Ul:utnert l ntematiOnil.l Awatd of Excdll:noo

Teaehtno Enoaoe~nents

56SIOO&! lècturcr, R.yer'$00 t.Mivetstty Graduate Studies course, "Legal l:lnd 1nst1tutbn&i Conu:xl 01 flttnrting," 2000 * l)rt~nl

5esSional lecturer, Queen's University l,~w Sd•-oof, lMc:l Use Plannillg L&w Course, 1999- 2001

Membershlps

CModl;,n 8ttr As:;odotlo" (Munlc:ipal l aw Section, Chair20l3·2()1S) Ot~tariO 6af ASSQCiallon (Municipal law section, «embe· Md PMt Ol.olr) JAternaUonar ,.1unklpal Lawyers-Association Lambd.a Alpha lnter.natlonal Stmcoe {Toronto) Chlloter ontarto Expropriation Assodation

IJrofcssional Ac;livitit:s

CO·&Jtltot of "A Comprehen9Ye CukSIJ to ~ Ctty of To/QtttO Att, 2006" (witb John fo1ascal'ln) • flrtt ediUon publlshed ln 2008 by L.wc1sNC)(l:$

AVIhOt Of sevt~tal actfdes and p:utldpant ln a oum ber o( scmln.ors ~nd progr(lm:~ i n hi:~ area of $t)f:Cia!l:tatïon

Occa9on!ll œntributor, Monit:iMI Wofld and the Onr<'lrlo &JIIdng OHidats Assod~tion Journ<JI

E"ducotlon

ll.B., QUeen's University, 1971 6.A.., St. Nic1lael"s Co'k:oe;, Unlvc~ity (){ Toi'OI){o, 1974

international municipal lawyers … term limits for municipal council members imla – san francisco...

Documents